Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1887-07-15
Trsmt by .snry.

I
| it to possess. Nor does the bir'or tits in
corporation into The law of Eug'aLd show it
90 have been always so wholly III tue inter
est Of liberty ard justice Us is supposed. 1t
was but brief time ago, compared with
the date OF some OF the rights which the
people wrested from the Crown, that men
began to claim right to be tried, when ac-
cused Of crime, by juries of their peers. We
have no space to recite the history. 1t is
full Of interest, and ought 10 be studied
more than it is by lawyers and laymen
alike.
When uriea in England were selected by
the Crown, without any intervention from
the accused, the Crown expected the jury 10
condemn. it was selected for that purpose.
When, as in some rare Instances, tho jury
brought in n verdict of not guilty, heavy
punishment was inflicted On the Jurors.
They were fined and imprisoned, and all
men wero thus warned that when chosen as
Jurors in criminal case they were expected
TO find such verdict as the prosecuting coun-
sci directed them to find.
While, within two or three centuries, the
right of jury trial has grown to be one Of
the great defenses of the subject against
tyranny OF government, like many other
excellent institutions it has been greatly
abused and its abuses demand reform. In
extending the right TO cases OF dispute be
tween man and man relating to property and
injuries of the person, heavy load of labor
and expense has been imposed on the peo-
pie, far heavier than the resulting good iusti-
! fies. 1t is absurd in the extreme to call
twelve citizens from their employments and
compel them to give day, or several days,
to finding the facts in case in which John
Smith asks damages from Thomas Jones for
assault and battery in quarrel. 1t Is
equally absurd TO summon twelve other cti-
Zens to try g case in which one man claims
hundred dollars from another for groce-
ry bill, or on q note, or for rent. Nor does
tho right 10 call these citizens exist at all to
the extent which most persons suppose it
does. Our statute already provides that
wherever suit requires the examination
of long account the Court may send it to
referee for trial. In various classes OF
cases the questions Of fact as we'll as of law
are tried by single Judge In the United
States courts admiralty cases, collisions Of
ships and other cases are tried by the dis
trict Judge. The vague idea of most people
that they have always the right to summon
twelve of their felow-citiZens to investigate
and decide their disputes with their fellows
is an error.
There would be, therefore, no shock to an
ancient and established right if the present
system of Jury trials were reformed by the
total abolition of jury trials in large num-
Der OF cases. The enormous burden now
imposed on the community might and
should be largely diminished. Not fourth,
| hardly tenth, of the present jury work
| done by citizens IS necessary to the ends OF
| Justice.
The traditional twelve as the number of Il
| Jury might readily be abandoned. Five or
three men are quite as likely TO reach the
! truth in disputed case as twelve. If jury
trials went back to barbaric times, it might
well be said that q relic of barbarism is WIS.,
| ible in tho law which requires the twelve
men 10 agree before verdict can be record
ed Tf it is not possible TO reform this @b
surdity in criminal cases, the good SENSE OF
our age ought to reform il in civi! cases.
When a man goes to law, and asks his gov
ernment to summon twelve impartial intel
! lieen5 citizens to try n cause between him
aud another man, he ought TO be satisfied
with the finding Of q msj jprltV OF the twelve.
/ Nor is there reason OF justice in the pres
en5 poor pay men, al jurors The dong OF
the public good, but il l. "a enormous con
trihulion, and unequal, Xacted. The ex-
empts are more numerous That the jurors.
The li;gau,s a,e few il comparison with
the vast number of citizens who never go TO
law. In criminal cases it may be argued
that every citizen ought to do iufy duty as
= public service Tor communits interests
There no such argument in favor OF exact
ing from citizens the duty # s;viug tbelr
time to the trial of petty or uc peity dis
pptes between individuals about money
ciaims, unless ample pay Is gl9eo them for
their service Every man VINO demands the
services OF his lelow men 10 Try cause for
him should yay them. It would be very
simple reform 10 require litigants VINO want
/ jury trials TO pay so . day TO each juror,
I or have their eases tried by the court or u
/ special board of triers. Such o board of
officers, attached to every court for the trial
| OF questions of fact, might be an excellent
substitute for Il jury in great number OF
cases, while IN Others the one Judge would
suffice fo7 questions of law and fact
The subject Is q broad one, and we may
recur to it at another time There are so
MANY wrongs connected with the system
now in use that the intelligent community
is certainly prepared for great, even a
radical change. Certainly it is a wrong,
amounting TO an outrage oil private rights,
/ TO summon q citizen TO attend court as ju-
ror, draw his name and place him in the jury
I box. keep him there several days, and then,
on peremptory challenge, tell him he is
not wanted. 1t is great wrong, and courts
and Judges deserve sharp censure Tor not
stopping it, TO summon hundreds OF citizens
examine them as to their competency, and
permit newspapers to describe their per-